D 161 
.3 
,N8 
[Copy 1 



THE SPEECH OF POPE URBAN II 
AT CLERMONT, 1095 



DANA CARLETON MUNRO 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



^mxwm iistotical §mm 



VOL. XI NO. 



1 



Gift 



n 



[Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. XI., No. 2, January, 1906.] 



THE SPEECH OF POPE URBAN II. AT CLERMONT, ioqs 

THE belief that Peter the Hermit was the instigator of the first 
crusade has long been abandoned. To Pope Urban II. be- 
longs the credit, or the responsibility, for the movement. On No- 
vember 27, 1095,^ at the Council of Clermont, he delivered the 
address which led so many thousands to take the cross. ^ There 
are several versions of this speech, but it cannot be proved that 
any one of them was written until a number of years after the 
Council. As these differ decidedly in their expressions, it has been 
assumed^ that it is impossible to determine what the pope actually 
said. It is the purpose of this, paper to show by an examination 
of the various versions that, in spite of the verbal differences, 
there is a remarkable agreement among the contemporary report- 
ers,* and consequently that it is possible to ascertain the subjects 
which the pope discussed. 

1 See Hagenmeyer, Chronologie, No. 9, in Revue de I'Orient Latin, VI. 222. 

^Ekkehard, MGSS., VI. 213, says that one hundred thousand took the cross 
at Clermont. For the results of his speech, cf. Wilken, Kreussiige, I. 52. 

3 Sybel, Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzeugs (2d ed.), 185: " Dem rechten 
Historiker, wenn er nicht auf die Darstellung der umgebenden Thatsachen und 
auf eine bereite Phantasie seines Lesers vertrauen will, bleibt hier nichts iibrig, 
als eine selbstandige Schopfung, eine erdichtete Wahrheit zu versuchen." 

* Almost all modern historians of the crusades have given a summary of 
Urban's speech. Generally they have been content to take one version (those 
given by William of Tyre, Robert, and Fulcher have been most frequently selected) 
and follow it. Others have combined arbitrarily statements from different ver- 
sions. The best and latest summary is by Rohricht, in his Geschichte des Ersten 
Kreuszuges, 20 : " Die Rede Urbans ist uns vielfach iiberliefert, aber nicht genau. 
Ohne Frage bildete den Inhalt ein Klageruf iiber die von den Unglaubigen gegen 
die Christen im heiligeu Lande veriibten Gewaltthaten, ein Kriegsruf an die 
gesammte Christenheit es Abendlandes, die Feinde aus dem Lande der Verheissung 
hinauszutreiben und es wieder den Christen zuriickzugeben, ein Trostruf, dass 
Christus den Seinen helfen und Sieg verleihen werde." The best discussion is 
also by Rohricht, ibid. 235-239. 

AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XI. — 16. (231) 



232 D. C. Munro 

The important versions are given by Fulcher of Chartres/ 
Robert the Monk,^ Baldric of Dol,' Guibert of Nogent,* and Wil- 
Ham of Malmesbury." Those of William of Tyre, Ordericus 
Vitalis, Roger of Wendover, and others are, as will be noted later, 
of little importance. 

Fulcher of Chartres, in his Historia Iherosolymitana, gives a 
very brief account of Urban's exhortation.® But he prefaces it 
by a summary of the pope's speech relative to the evil conditions 
in the West.'^ This was an address to the clergy who were at the 
Council. At its close the Truce of God was proclaimed and all 
who were present promised to observe it. Then Urban began his 
exhortation. This is the portion of Fulcher's account which must 
be compared with the versions given by the others. It is accepted 
as the most trustworthy of all by Hagenmeyer^ and Rohricht." 
They state that Fulcher was present at the Council.^" Hagen- 
meyer thinks that his account was written down within a short 
time, surely not later than about iioo." The date usually given for 
the completion of the iirst part of his history is 1105.'^ 

Robert the Monk, in his Historia Iherosolymitana, gives a some- 
what longer account. He states in his preface that he was com- 
missioned to write the history because he was at Clermont. ^^ It is 
not possible to determine the time when he wrote ; certainly it was 
not before iioi— 1102"; probably it was a few years later.^* He 
does not have the first speech of Urban to the clergy, but he does 
give a summary of the pope's second speech to the clergy,'^ after 

^ Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Occidentaux, III. 322-324. 
(Hereafter this series will be cited as Recueil.) 

^ Recueil, III. 727-730. ^ Ibid., IV. 12-15. ^Ibid., IV. 137-140. 

^De Gestis Regum Anglorum, edited by Stubbs, Rolls Series, II. 393-398. 
6 Ch. 3. ■< Ch. 2. 

8 Ekkehard's Hierosolymita, p. 90. (Hereafter quoted as HE.) 

9 Op. cit., p. 239. 

'"In 1877, Hagentneyer wrote (HE, p. 90), " Ohne Zweifel war er selbst 
auch auf dem Concil anwesend." In 1879, in Peter der Eremite, p. 72, he referred 
to him as an " Ohrenzeuge ", and he has used the same term in his later writings. 
Rohricht, op. cit., also called him an "Ohrenzeuge". (Molinier, Les Sources de 
I'Histoire de France, No. 2123, says he was present.) They give no reference and 
I have not been able to find in his writings any proof that he was present. 
Whether present or not, he was well informed, as will be apparent later. 

11 HE, p. 90. 12 Molinier, Sources, No. 2123. 

13 " Praecipit igitur mihi ut qui Clari Montis Concilio interfui," Recueil, III. 721. 

1* Riant, Ale.vii Comneni Epistola ad Robertum Flandrensem, p. xli. 

15 C/. Molinier, Sources, No. 2118. 

-6 The pope made three speeches. First he addressed the clergy, urging a 
reform. (Fulcher, bk. i., ch. 2. Baldric, " quae ad fidem pertinebant praemissis," 
Recueil, IV. 12F. Cf. William of Malmesbury's opening sentences, § 347.) This 
speech was probably made on the same day as, and just before, the exhortation 



speech of Urban II. at Clerino7tt 233 

the completion of the exhortation.^ This portion of his account 
should be omitted in comparing it with the other versions. His 
version has frequently been preferred by later historians. 

Baldric of Bourgueil, archbishop of Dol, probably wrote his 
H'istoria Jerosolimitana soon after 1107.^ He states in two dif- 
ferent passages that he was at the Council. He does not give 
the first speech of Urban to the clergy, but has a brief summary of 
the second. His account was regarded by Ranke as the best.* 

Guibert, abbot of Nogent, wrote the first portion of his Gesta 
Dei per Francos not later than 1108.® Sybel,^ Hagenmeyer/ and 
Rohricht * state that he was present at Clermont.^ Guibert knew 
Fulcher's Historia and used it for the later portions of his work, 
but he did not copy Fulcher's version of the speech. His report 
dififers decidedly from those given by the others. He makes no men- 
tion of either address to the clergy. 

William of Malmesbury, although a contemporary, did not write 
his version until thirty or more years after the Council.'" It has 
been regarded as of little value. Hagenmeyer and Rohricht^^ state 
that it is based upon Fulcher's account. This is true for portions 
but not for the whole of William's version. He has some points 
that he could not have drawn from Fulcher. He says that his 

to take the cross. The third speech was to the clergy (cf. Baldric and Robert), 
probably on the following day, the last day of the Council (Histoire Generate de 
Languedoc, ed. Privat, III. 480). It consisted of practical directions to insure 
the success of the undertaking. 

1 Recueil, III. 729 to end of chapter. The two speeches, however, are repre- 
sented by Robert as continuous. 

2 Molinier, Sources, No. 2120. ■* 

3 " Inter omnes autem in eodem concilio, nobis videntibus," in RectieiT,. 
IV. 15G. " Solutum est concilium, et nos unus quisque properantes redivimus 
ad propria," ibid., 16D. 

* Weltgeschichte, VIII. 82. 

5 See Thurot, in Revue Historique, pp. 104-111, and in Recueil, IV. xv-xx. 

6 Geschichte des Ersten Kreuzzugs (2d ed.), p. 33. 
' HE, p. 89 ; Peter der Eremite, p. 72. 

8 Op. cit., p. 235. 

^ They cite no reference, and I have not been able to find any proof of his 
presence. Some passages in his work would indicate that he was not present : 
(i) He gives the date for the Council as 1097 and the thirty-seventh year of 
Philip's reign ; of course, this error may have been due to a copyist. Bongars 
corrected it in his edition of Guibert. (2) He apologized for his ignorance of 
the name of the bishop of Puy, who was appointed papal legate at Clermont. 
" De nomine autem Podiensis episcopi diu haesi, . . . non enim in meo habebatur 
exemplari." Preface, Recueil, IV. 121. "Podiensis urbis episcopo (cujus nomen 
doleo, quia neque usquam repperi nee audivi)." Bk. ii., ch. 5, ibid., 140. 
"Stubbs's preface to Vol. I., R. S., p. xliii. 

11 HE, p. 89 ; Rohricht, op. cit., p. 239. The latter, however, quotes William's 
own statement as to his sources. 



234 D. C. Miinro 

informants were persons who had heard the speech.^ There seems 
to be no more reason for doubting this than any other uncor- 
roborated statement, and his version ought certainly to be con- 
sidered. The other reports of the speech are obviously copied^ or 
fictitious. To the latter class belongs the speech in William of 
Tyre,^ which has so often been regarded as the most correct ver- 
sion. It has no independent value.* 

The reconstruction of the exhortation must be based upon the 
versions of Robert and Baldric, who say that they were at Cler- 
mont ; of Fulcher and Guibert, who may have been present ; and 
of William of Malmesbury, who says that his information was de- 
rived from persons who were present. All, except Fulcher, state 
that they do not reproduce the exact words of the pope.® All that 
can be attempted, therefore, is a reconstruction of the outline of the 
exhortation. 

This reconstruction is somewhat difficult inasmuch as the three 
separate speeches^ of the pope have been confused to some extent 
in the different versions. The task of reconstruction seems to be 
further complicated by the existence of points of resemblance be- 
tween some versions of the speech and passages in the famotts 
letter of the Emperor Alexius to Count Robert of Flanders.'' The 
genuineness and date of the letter have long been subjects of con- 
troversy.* To quote only a few of the more important opinions: 
Riant thought the letter was based in part upon sermons of Urban 
IL and was the work of a forger in 1098-1099.^ Chalandon be- 
lieves the letter was forged in 1098-1099, but was based in part 
upon a genuine letter of 1088-1089.^" Hagenmeyer dates it 1088; 

1 R. S., II. 393, " quern, sicut ab auditoribus accepi, placuit postens trans- 
mittere integro verborum sensu custodito." 

2 E. g., Ordericus Vitalis, Roger of Wendover, Breviarium passagii in Terrain 
Sanctam. 

3 Rohricht, op. cit., p. 239, " eine freie Erfindung, allerdings ein Meisterstuck 
seiner Art ". 

^ Among the subjects which he inserts in the speech is the letter which 
Pecer the Hermit had brought from the East. 

5 Robert, " Haec et id genus plurima peroravit." Recueil, III. 729C. Bal- 
dric, " His vel hujus modi aliis a domino," ibid., IV. 15G. Guibert, " His ergo, etsi 
non verbis, tamen intentionibus usus est," ibid., 137E. Cf. William of Malmes- 
bury, as cited in note i, above. 

6 See note 16, p. 232. 

' Best editions in Riant, Alexii Comneni Epistola ad Robertum Flandrensem ; 
and in Hagenmeyer, Kreuzzugshriefe, pp. 130-136. 

8 See ibid., 10-42; Riant, op. cit., preface; and " Inventaire critique des 
lettres historiques ", in Archives de I'Orient Latin, I. 71-89; Chalandon, Rdgne 
d' Alexis I"^ Comnene, pp. 325-336. 

9 Inventaire, A. O. L., I. 74. 
"^^ Alexis, p. 335. 



speech of Urban II. at Clei^inont 235 

G. Paris, about 1090; Vasiljevski, about 1091.' Chalandon says: 
" On ne peut savoir si ce sont les sermons d'Urbain qui ont servi 
de source a I'epistola ou si, au contraire, ce ne sont pas les redacteurs 
de ces pretendus sermons qui ont utilise cette derniere."^ There 
is too great a resemblance between portions of the letter and pas- 
sages in some of the versions for both to be original ; e. g., the ac- 
count of the cruelties and the pollution of the holy places in Robert 
and in the letter. 

It is to be noted, however, that if the letter was a source, no 
one in his version used it for more than a few points,^ and in each 
case other accounts of the speech mention these same points in a 
manner that shows no influence of the letter. Consequently " it 
seems almost certain that these subjects were mentioned by the 
pope, and hence the letter need not be considered in the analysis. 
It is not necessary, either, to discuss the question whether Urban 
was influenced by the letter or whether, on the other hand, the 
letter was based upon Urban's speech.* It seems probable that the 
letter, whichever date is taken for its composition, was in existence 
before any of the versions which have parallel passages ; and that 
the writers of these used it. Believing that Urban discussed a sub- 
ject, it would be the most natural thing for Robert or Baldric or 
William to borrow from any source at hand either a pertinent ac- 
count or a phrase which struck his fancy. This was such a com- 
mon practice in the middle ages that it would have been remark- 
able if they had not done it. The letter, therefore, probably in- 
fluenced the mode of expression in some versions, but not the 
general outline. 

In order to ascertain what Pope Urban actually said it is now 
necessary to analyze each version of the speech, and to ascertain 
the separate facts given in each. It is to be expected a priori that 
the ideas will be expressed in dififerent words and that each writer 
will dwell upon the portions of greatest interest to him, passing 
lightly over other portions. After such an analysis, it will be 
possible to select the facts which seem to be well vouched for and 
thus to determine the main outline of the pope's remarks. Accord- 
ingly the separate facts will now be taken up ; those given in 
Fulcher's version will be used first ; and in each case it will be noted 

1 Hagenmeyer, Krenssiigshriefe, pp. 10-24. 2 p_ 330. 

3 In addition to the example above, only a single point in Baldric, possibly 
one in Guibert, several in William. But each one, if he did use the letter, took 
a different part. 

* It would be an easy but unprofitable task to builJ up an ingenious argument 
for either point of view. 



236 D. C. Munro 

when the same fact is cited by any of the others. Then the other 
speeches will be analyzed in the same manner, and in the follow- 
ing order: Robert, Baldric, Guibert, William of Malmesbury. 

Necessity of aiding the brethren in the East. Found in all.^ 

Appeals for aid from the East. Found in Fulcher,^ Robert,-^ 
and possibly in Baldric* Guibert does not mention these appeals 
in his account of the speech, but refers, in the preceding chapter, 
to the gifts and prayqrs of the emperor by which Urban was moved. ^ 
This point is not referred to by William of Malmesbury. 

Victorious advance of the Turks. Mentioned by Fulcher" and 
Robert.'' Baldric ^ and Guibert have no such explicit mention, but 
all the earlier portion in each of their speeches presupposes the 
knowledge of such a conquest. On the other hand, William of 
Malmesbury has a long list of the provinces which the Turks had 
conquered.^ 

Sufferings of the Christians in the East. Mentioned very 

1 Fulcher, ch. 3 : " Quoniam, o filii Dei, si pacem apud vos tenendam et 
Ecclesiae jura conservanda fideliter sustentare virilius solito polliciti Deo estis, 
exstat operae pretium ut insuper ad quoddam aliud Dei negotium et vestrum, 
emendatione deifica nuper vegetati, probitatis vestrae valitudinem versetis. Ne- 
cesse est enim, quatinus confratribus vestris in Orientali plaga conversantibus, 
auxilio vestro jam saepe acclamato indigis, accelerate itinere succurratis." Recueil, 
III. 323. " O quanta improperia vobis ab ipso Domino imputabuntur, si eos non 
juveritis qui professione Christiana censentur, sicut et vos ! " Ibid., 324. It is 
not necessary to quote special passages from the other speeches, as in each case 
this is the main purport. 

2 " Auxilio vestro jam saepe acclamato." Ibid., 323F. 

3 " Ab Iherosolimorum finibus et urbe Constantinopolitana relatio gravis 
emersit et saepissime jam ad auresi nostras pervenit." Ibid., 727C-D. 

* " Audivimus, fratres dilectissimi, et audistis, . . . quantis calamitatibus, 
quantis incommoditatibus, quam diris contritionibus, in Jerusalem et in Antiochia 
et in ceteris Orientalis plagae civitatibus. Christian! . . . flagellantur, opprimuntur, 
injuriantur. Germani fratres vestri, . . . aut inter nos mendicant." Ibid., IV. 
12-13. 

^ " Ab Alexi Graecorum principe magnis honoraretur exequiis et precibus 
. . . pulsaretur." Ibid., 135 C-D. Note also his mention of Constantinople near 
the beginning of the speech. 

s " Invaserunt enim eos, sicuti plerisque vestrum jam dictum est, usque mare 
Mediterraneum, ad illud scilicet quod dicUnt Brachium Sancti Georgii, Turci, 
gens Persica, qui, apud Romaniae fines, terras Christianorum magis magisque 
occupando, lite bellica jam septuplicata victos superaverunt," pp. 323-324. 

' " Gens regni Persarum . . . terras illorum Christianorum invaserit," p. 727D. 
" Regnum Graecorum jam ab eis ita emutilatum est et suis usibus emancipatum 
quod transmeari non potest itinere duorum mensium," p. 728A. 

s " Nequam homines sanctas praeoccupavere civitates : Turci spurii et im- 
mundi nostris fratribus dominantur," p. 13B. Also the possession of Antioch and 
Jerusalem by the Turks is mentioned. 

8 " Syriam, Armeniam, omnem postremo Asiam Minorem, cujus provinciae 
sunt Bithinia, Frigia, Galatia, Lidia, Caria, Pamphilia, Isauria, Licia, Cilicia, 
occt:paverunt," p. 394. This may have been derived from the letter of Alexius. 



speech of Urban II. at Clermont 237 

briefly by Fulcher/ dwelt upon at great length by Robert,^ to a 
lesser degree by Baldric^ and William.* Guibert does not mention 
this subject, but does dwell upon the sufferings of the pilgrims.^ 

Desecration or destruction of the churches and holy places. 
Mentioned by Fulcher," by Robert/ at great length by Baldric,* 
and slightly by William." Guibert also mentions this, but treats it 
under the special sanctity of Jerusalem. ^° 

This is God's zvork. Mentioned explicitly by Flucher^^ ; it is, in 
fact, the underlying thought in all the versions. Robert expresses 
this idea in his preface, " Hoc enim non fuit humanum opus, sed 
divinum." In his account of Urban's second speech to the clergy, 
the pope refers their unanimity to God's direct agency. ^^ Other 
heads of the speech, to be noted later, bring out this idea forcibly.^* 

Rich and poor alike ought to go. Mentioned by Fulcher,''' but 
not explicitly by the others. It seems probable that Urban aroused 
even greater enthusiasm than he desired. In his second address to 
the clergy'^ he stated that he did not desire old men, or those un- 
fitted for war, or women without guardians. Clerks were not to 
go without the permission of their bishop, nor laymen without the 
blessing of their priest. These same limitations are brought out 
later in the letter of Urban to the inhabitants of Bologna.'** But 
the pope'" eloquence had been too persuasive, the project was too 

i"Multas occidendo vel captivando," p. 324A. 

2 P. 727D to p. 728B. This may, however, be borrowed from the letter of 
Alexius. 

"P. IJ2A-B. Note especially, " Siqui adhuc ibi latitant Christiani inauditis 
exquiruntur tormetitis." Cf. note 4, p. 236. 
* P- 395, 1- 12 to 1. 15. 

3 See note 13, p. 240. 

6 " Ecclesias subvertendo, regnum Dei vastando," p. 324A. 

' " Ecclesiasque Dei aut funditus everterit aut suorum ritui sacrorum manci- 
paverit," p. 727E. 

8 P. 13. Note especially, " Ecclesiae in quibus olim divina celebrata sunt 
mysteria, proh dolor ! ecce animalibus eorum stabula praeparantur." 

^ P- 395, II- 10-11. But compare all the context for proof that this was in 
William's mind. 

1" See note 10, p. 240. 

11 " Qua de re supplici prece hortor, non ego, sed Dominus . . . vos, Christi 
praecones, . . . Praesentibus dico, absentibus mando, Christus autem imperat," 
p. 324A-B, 

'2 " Nisi Dominus Deus mentibus vestris affuisset, una omnium vestrum vox 
non fuisset," p. 729D. 

'3 William, p. 396, 11. 15-16, "Praesentibus ex Dei nomine praecipio, absenti- 
bus mando," is evidently influenced by Fulcher. See note 11, above. 

>♦ " Ut cunctis cujuslibet ordinis tam equitibus quam peditibus, tam divitibus 
quam pauperibus . . . suadeatis," p. 324A-B. 
'■^ Robert, ch. 2, p. 729E. 
16 Riant, Inventaire, A. O. L., I. 121; cf. p. 115, note 8. 



'^^ 



238 DC. Munro 

attractive. Men and women of all classes, even children, started 
on the crusade. Occasionally some were restrained by the wisdom 
of their clerical advisers.^ 

All who went on the crusade zvere to receive plenary indul- 
gence or full remission of sins.- This is clear from the canon of 
the Council,^ from the statement of Pope Eugene III.,* and from 
the letters of Urban to the princes of Flanders' and to the people of 
Bologna.'^ It was reported in various forms by the contemporaries. 
Flucher limits it to those who died on the expedition'^ ; Robert ap- 
plies it to all who went.^ Baldric inserts a rather indefinite state- 
ment concerning it in Urban's address to the clergy.® Guibert does 
not mention it in his account of the speech. William applies it to 
all.^" It is interesting to compare with these brief statements the 
very careful exposition of William of Tyre.^^ 

Expressions of contempt for the Turks. The terms used by 
Fulcher,^^ Robert,'^ and Baldric" are commonplace enough. Gui- 
bert mildly calls them nefandi. William of Malmesbury,'^ on the 
other hand, has a long passage describing the cowardice and de- 
generacy of the Turks. His account accords with the general be- 
lief of the times. ^" If Urban used contemptuous expressions it 
would probably have been so much in agreement with their own 
ideas that his hearers would have paid little heed to this portion 
of his address. The crusaders were surprised at the bravery of 
the Turks when they met the latter in battle.'" 

' See Histoire Generale de Languedoc (ed. Privat), III. 484. 

* These terms are used in their technical sense. 

3 " Quicumque, pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adeptione, 
ad liberandam ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni 
poenitentia reputetur." Migne, Pair. Lat., CLXII. 717. 

* " Illam peccatorum remissionem, quam prefatus predecessor noster papa 
Urbanus instituit." Ottonis Fris. Gesta Fr., MGSS., XX. 371. 

5 Riant, Inventaire, No. XLIX, A. O. L., I., p. 113 and p. 220. This letter 
also confirms several of the other points. 

6 Ibid., No. LVII. 

' " Cunctis autem illuc euntibus, si aut gradiendo aut transfretando, sive 
contra paganos dimicando, vitam morte praepeditam finierint, remissio pecca- 
torum praesens aderit," p. 324B. 

8 " Arripite igitur viam banc in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum," p. 729B. 

9 P. 15F. 

'" " Ituri . . . omnium absolutionem criminum," p. 396. 
" Recueil, I. 42, 11. 11-16. 

12 " Gens tarn spreta, degener, et daemonum ancilla," p. 324C. 
^3 " Gens prorsus a Deo aliena," p. 727D ; " nefariae genti," p. 728F. 
•* " Turci spurii et immundi," p. 13B. 
15 P. 395, 1. 31, to p. 396, 1. 5. 

IS Cf. Prutz, Kulturgeschichfe der Kreuzziige, p. 73, and the contemptuous 
expressions in the Gesta Francontm, passim. 

" Hagenmeyer, Gesta Francorum, IX. 206-208. 



^ 



speech of Urban II, at Clermont 239 

Fight righteous wars instead of the iniq,uitoiis combats in which 
you have been engaged. Mentioned at some length by all/ Prom- 
ise of eternal rezvards. Mentioned by all.^ Promise of temporal 
rewards. Indefinite in F^ilcher,' but not in Robert* or in Baldric.® 
Guibert^ and William of Malmesbury^ have no parallel passages, 
but the same idea of the acquisition of the enemy's country is 
assumed. The participants are not to let anything hinder them. 
Fulcher barely mentions this.* Robert gives a much fuller state- 
ment,^ that they are not to be hindered by ties of affection or care 
for property. Baldric has a passage of the same import.'" Gui- 
bert has no mention of this, but William dwells upon it." Time of 
departure. Mentioned only by Fulcher.'^ It seems probable that 
this was not mentioned in the exhortation but was fixed later. The 
time actually set for the departure was August 15, 1096.'^ God 
zvill be your leader. Mentioned by Fulcher, " Domino praevio",'* 
as the last point in the pope's exhortation. Robert does not have 
this, but he may have had it in mind when he gave as the con- 
cluding sentence of the pope's second address to the clergy, " He 
that taketh not his cross and followeth after me is not worthy of 
me." Baldric expressed it, " sub Jesu Christo, duce nostro, acies 

1 Fulcher, " contra infideles ad pugnam . . . dignam . . . qui abusive . . . 
contra fideles . . . consuescebant distendere," p. 324D. Robert, p. 728F. Baldric, 
p. isA-B. Guibert, " Indebita hactenus bella gessistis . . . Nunc vobis bella pro- 
ponimus quae in se habent gloriosum martyrii munus," etc.,p. 138E. William, espe- 
cially p. 396, 11. 25, 26, " illam fortudinem, prudentiam illam, quam in civili con- 
flictu habere consuestis, justiori effundentes, proelio." 

2 Fulcher, "aeterna praemia nanciscantur," p. 324D,; Robert, " immarces- 
cibili gloria sequi coelorum," 729B ; Baldric, " sanguine vestis purpurati, perenne 
bravium adipiscimini," p. isC; Guibert, "gloriosum martyrii munus . . . aeternae 
laudis titulus," p. 138E. William, " perpetuae salutis statio," p. 394, 1. 11; cf. 
p. 396, 1. 22. 

3 " Pro honore duplici laborent, qui ad detrimentum corporis et animae se 
fatigabant," p. 324D-E. 

* " Eamque vobis subjicite, terra ilia . . . quae lacte et melle fiuit," etc., 
p. 728F. This is contrasted with their poverty at home. 

5 " Facultates etiam inimicorum vestrae erunt : quoniam et illorum thesauros 
expoliabitis," p. 15C. 

6 But see p. 240, note 17, and corresponding text. 

' When William urges them not to be detained by their patrimony becausa 
more ample ones are promised, the context sems to show that eternal rewards 
are referred to. 

8 " Ituris autem mora non differat iter, sed propriis locatis, sumptibusque 
collectis . . . transitem acriter intrent," p. 324E. 

9 P. 728E. 

1" " Non vos demulceant illecebrosa blandimenta mulierum nee rerum ves- 
trarum," p. 15E. 

1' P. 378, 11. 4-10. 

12 " Cessante bruma vernoque sequente," p. 324E. 

1' Riant, Inventaire, A. O. L., I. 114, 220. >« P. 324E. 



240 D. C. Munro 

Christiana ", etc.^ Guibert has " Deo vos praeeunte, Deo pro vobis 
proeHante"^; and at the end of the exhortation "Christum fore 
signiferum . . . et praecursorem individuum." William's phrase 
is, " aderit Deus euntibus."^ 

Praise of the Franks. Robert begins his version with a refer- 
ence to the Franks as the chosen people beloved by God. His state- 
ment does not carry very great weight because this is a favorite 
thought of his.* While a natural beginning under ordinary cir- 
cumstances, it may not have seemed appropriate after the refer- 
ences to the evil conduct of the people in the previous address. 
This may have caused Fulcher* and Baldric to omit it even if it 
was a part of the pope's speech. Guibert has no mention of it in 
the speech, but uses similar language in a preceding chapter. *' 
William refers to the " famosa Francorum virtus."^ 

Special sanctity of Jerusalem. Mentioned by Robert,^ Baldric,® 
and Guibert^" at great length. The Holy Sepulchre, in particular, 
and its profanation are cited. Evil conditions at home. Men- 
tioned by all but Fulcher." The latter may have omitted it be- 
cause he had already given the pope's first speech, in which the 
evil conditions were discussed at length. ^^ Sufferings of the pil- 
grims. Mentioned by Baldric''' and at great length by Guibert.'* 
The task zvill be easy. Mentioned slightly by Baldric,'' and by 
William.'" Necessity of contending against Antichrist. This is 
mentioned only by Guibert."' His argument is interesting. It may 
be summarized baldly : The coming of Antichrist is at hand. Ac- 
cording to the prophets he will have his dwelling on the Mount of 
Olives and will destroy the three Christian kings of Egypt, Africa, 
and Ethiopia. But these countries are now pagan and there are 

'P. 15A. 2 P. 138C. 140D. 3 p. 398, 1. 17. 

* In addition to four places in the exhortation where he mentions this. Cf. 
prologue and Historia, passim. 

5 But note p. 324C, " gentem omnipotentes Dei fide praeditam, et Christi 
nomine fulgidam." 

6Bk. II., ch. I. ■'P. 396, 11. 28-29. 

8 Ch. 2 at the beginning, and. p. 728C. 9 p. j^. 

^"Passim. A large portion of his version is devoted to this theme. 
" Robert, " quoniam terra haec quam inhabitatis . . . numerositate vestra 
coangustatos . . . et vi sola alimenta suis cultoribus administrat," etc., p. 728E. 
Baldric, p. I4F; Guibert, p. 138E; William, pp. 393, 394; this passage may be, 
in part at least, a reminiscence of the pope's first speech. 

12 Cf., however, p. 324D. 

13 " Quantis afBictationibus vos, qui adestis, qui redestis, injuriaverint," etc., 
p. 14A. 

!•> P. 139H to 140C. '5 " Via brevis est, labor permodicus est," p. 15D. 

16 P. 394, 1. 10. Cf. pp. 395, 396 on the ease of defeating the cowardly Turks. 
I'P. 138H to p. 139C. 



1 



f 



speech of Urban II. at Clermont 241 

no Christian kings. Therefore, it is necessary, for the fulfilment 
of the prophecy, for -the Christians to conquer these countries so 
that there may be Christian kings to be destroyed. Possibly this 
was Guibert's way of stating the temporal rewards mentioned by 
the others. 

Reference to Spain} Mentioned by William, but by no one 
else. Guibert, however, does give in the preceding chapter, as one 
of the causes of the pope's preaching the crusade, that he had very 
often heard of the Saracens' attack upon Spain.- Cross to he worn. 
Mentioned by William.^ Robert mentions this in the second ad- 
dress to the clergy."* The others mention it later but not as a 
part of the pope's speech. 

In addition to the subjects already mentioned there is a subtle 
appeal to the ascetic spirit of the times, in the versions by Baldric, 
Guibert, and William; and an exhortation to follow the example 
of the Old Testament heroes, in the versions by Baldric and Guibert. 
It is probable that both subjects were referred to by Urban, but the 
vague and divergent references may be merely the work of the 
reporters. The references are of too slight weight to be used here. 

Urban may have mentioned all these subjects, as well as some 
which have not been reported. Undoubtedly, his exhortation was 
much longer than any of the brief reports which have been pre- 
served. But, judging from the material in existence, the follow- 
ing conclusions seem justified. 

In addition to the points about which there can be no reasonable 
doubt, rich and poor may have been urged to go. If this was not 
expressly mentioned, it seems to have been taken for granted by the 
auditors. The evil conditions at home were probably dwelt upon. 
The only doubt in this case arises from a possible confusion of 
the first and second speeches in the various reports. Some men- 
tion of this subject would, however, naturally accompany the ex- 
hortation to fight just wars in place of unjust. The sufferings of 
the pilgrims were probably mentioned. There may have been some 
reference to Spain, as this might have been suggested by the con- 
quests of the Turks. The valor of the Franks may have been 
praised by the pope. It is a matter of doubt whether Urban used 
any but cdmmonplace expressions of contempt in describing the 
'\ 

1 " Jamque U trecentis annis Hispania et Balearibus insulis subjugatis," p. 395. 

2 Bk. II., ch\i. It was chiefly on these statements by William and Guibert 
that Riant basedVhis argument that the pope was influenced principally by the 
danger to Spain, ^iant, Alexii Epistola, p. xxiv. 

3 P. 396, 1. 17. 
* P. 730A. 



i 




242 



D. C. Mtmro 



Turks or in regard to the easiness of the task. He probably did 
not refer to the time of departure, to the need of contending against 
Antichrist/ or to the wearing of the cross. 

The outHne of the pope's speech, therefore, seems to have been 
as follows^: [Praise of the valor of the Franks] ; necessity of aid- 
ing the brethren in the East; appeals for aid from the East; vic- 
torious advance of the Turks; [reference to Spain] ; sufferings of 
the Christians in the East; (sufferings of the pilgrims) ; desecra- 
tion of the churches and holy places ; [expressions of contempt con- 
cerning the Turks] ; special sanctity of Jerusalem ; this is God's 
work; (rich and poor to go) ; grant of plenary indulgence; fight 
righteous wars instead of iniquitous combats; (evil conditions at 
home) ; promise of eternal and temporal rewards; let nothing hinder 
you ; God will be your leader. 

Dana Carleton Munro. 

1 Antichrist is mentioned in the letter of Alexius. A priori it seems probable 
that the pope would have mentioned Antichrist. On the other hand, if such a 
mention had been made, it seems probable that more than one of the five versions 
would have preserved it. 

2 The subjects concerning which there seems to be no doubt are printed 
without inclosures ; those which the pope probably used are in parentheses ; those 
which he may have used are in brackets; the other subjects are, of course, 
omitted. The order is determined by a comparison of the different versions. It 
is only hypothetical, and the purpose of this paper would not be affected by a 
change in order. 



^X 




/ 



